Wars, genocide, reparations, religion, etc (split from recruiting forum)

[utvolpj]

a right, or is it simply not illegal? here in America you don't have to have a right to do something for it to not be illegal.

plan to, or are in the process of destroying? I would say if you are in the act of destroying it, and I can take it without breaking a law, trespassing, assault, breaking & entering etc, I don't see how its a crime.

do you think we have to Michael Scott declare something to justify the stopping of a crime? would it have helped in your opinion if he had listed the statutes first that were being broken?

I think if the cops, fire department, or especially in this case security, could have done the same action without question it shouldn't be a question if him doing it is illegal. imo either of those other three groups could have done the same thing, no problem. that is part of why I brought up that I didn't know if it was home or away. If someone is burning something on/in my employers property in a manner that is going to damage private property, even to a small degree, I don't think I would face any punishment if I took action to stop that act. even if I am not specifically employed to handle that situation. In this case the act would have likely inhibited his ability to work; and their rights of protesting ended the moment they stepped on private property. especially non-violent acts. I might feel different if someone told me he punched the protesters or kicked them into the fire to take the flag away.

You can't just take something you don't own away from another person without breaking the law. I don't see how that's possible. I briefly skimmed the story and he said he didn't think it was right to burn it and that's why he took it. He wasn't being Smokey the bear. What I choose to do with my property doesn't make it free game.

 

[LouderVol]

You can't just take something you don't own away from another person without breaking the law. I don't see how that's possible. I briefly skimmed the story and he said he didn't think it was right to burn it and that's why he took it. He wasn't being Smokey the bear. What I choose to do with my property doesn't make it free game.

you are if you are getting rid of it. and I would consider destroying something to be getting rid of it. especially if you are doing so in a public place, or on someone else's private property. you are having to change the scenario to make it wrong.

you come onto my property and try to burn something of yours without my permission and I am 100% going to take it away and feel pretty justified.

you don't have to have a legal reasoning/intent behind an act to make it legal. just like you can commit crimes, without an intent to break the law.

 

[utvolpj]

you are if you are getting rid of it. and I would consider destroying something to be getting rid of it. especially if you are doing so in a public place, or on someone else's private property. you are having to change the scenario to make it wrong.

you come onto my property and try to burn something of yours without my permission and I am 100% going to take it away and feel pretty justified.

you don't have to have a legal reasoning/intent behind an act to make it legal. just like you can commit crimes, without an intent to break the law.

If the act of burning the flag is codified protected speech then how do you say someone is getting rid of it? Taking the property would interrupt and inhibit their rights.

You can't just take things because you believe someone is done with it. I can't just walk up and eat your meal at a restaurant because you left the table.

 

[LouderVol]

If the act of burning the flag is codified protected speech then how do you say someone is getting rid of it? Taking the property would interrupt and inhibit their rights.

You can't just take things because you believe someone is done with it. I can't just walk up and eat your meal at a restaurant because you left the table.

if you saw me pay the check and walk out the door, I don't think anyone would consider it stealing.

or in this case, it would be like me throwing it on the floor piece by piece, and you come over and take the rest off my table, I still don't think that would be stealing. especially if you were an employee.

was the field private property? I am assuming back then it was. if so they don't have the same freedom of speech they would on a street corner. as I think I said before their right to speech stops the moment they trespassed on the private property of the field. it isn't a get out of jail free card, or override someone else's private property rights.

 

[utvolpj]

if you saw me pay the check and walk out the door, I don't think anyone would consider it stealing.

or in this case, it would be like me throwing it on the floor piece by piece, and you come over and take the rest off my table, I still don't think that would be stealing. especially if you were an employee.

was the field private property? I am assuming back then it was. if so they don't have the same freedom of speech they would on a street corner. as I think I said before their right to speech stops the moment they trespassed on the private property of the field. it isn't a get out of jail free card, or override someone else's private property rights.

Walk out? They were in the act when it was taken

You can't steal personal belongings on someone else's property either. It meets the definition of theft whether it was charged or not.

 

[LouderVol]

Walk out? They were in the act when it was taken

You can't steal personal belongings on someone else's property either. It meets the definition of theft whether it was charged or not.

and what do you think there intent was if they had been successful? You think they are going to take the ashes with them? or even if just most of it burned, were they going to pick through the pieces and the unburnt pieces home? it was still theirs right? would the guy who had to clean up the ashes been stealing? it was clearly their intent to not own it anymore, and they were not-owning it via an illegal act.

they were illegally on someone else's private property. you haven't addressed that point.

their freedom of speech never existed in consequence free form. you didn't address that.

their freedom of speech ends the moment they are on someone else's private property. you didn't address that.

all of those points you have yet to address says he didn't do anything wrong. you keep moving goalposts and changing the scenario to try and make him in the wrong, but he simply wasn't.

If I come to your house, light a bunch of my stuff on fire to protest the government, in your world I am doing nothing wrong, and you as the property owner can't do anything to stop me or the fire? nor can any bystander? freedom of speech right? maybe its a bunch of those Texas sized American flags so its a codified right for me to burn your property?

 

[utvolpj]

and what do you think there intent was if they had been successful? You think they are going to take the ashes with them? or even if just most of it burned, were they going to pick through the pieces and the unburnt pieces home? it was still theirs right? would the guy who had to clean up the ashes been stealing? it was clearly their intent to not own it anymore, and they were not-owning it via an illegal act.

they were illegally on someone else's private property. you haven't addressed that point.

their freedom of speech never existed in consequence free form. you didn't address that.

their freedom of speech ends the moment they are on someone else's private property. you didn't address that.

all of those points you have yet to address says he didn't do anything wrong. you keep moving goalposts and changing the scenario to try and make him in the wrong, but he simply wasn't.

If I come to your house, light a bunch of my stuff on fire to protest the government, in your world I am doing nothing wrong, and you as the property owner can't do anything to stop me or the fire? nor can any bystander? freedom of speech right? maybe its a bunch of those Texas sized American flags so its a codified right for me to burn your property?

I actually addressed the property question in the post you quoted. They were not on the property of the person who took the flag

So the consequence of free speech is getting your stuff taken? Interesting punishment.

Did the guy take something that belonged to someone else? Do you think he recognized their act as free speech or does he ascribe a bigger meaning to their item of choice to burn?

Lighting "a bunch of stuff" on fire is not protected anywhere that I'm aware of

 

[Jackcrevol]

Your local liquor store should have cbd/thc canned drinks now. Not sure how much that helps your situation, but you at least can try that out before spending a lot of money on a med?

Dosages range from 5mg up to 50mg

Really wish TN would get it over with

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Really wish TN would get it over with

Why?

 

[Jackcrevol]

Why?

would be a huge influx of cash from marijuana

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

would be a huge influx of cash from marijuana

Not worth it imo

 

[drvenner]

Not worth it imo

Do you feel the same way about alcohol?

 

[Jackcrevol]

Do you feel the same way about alcohol?

Alcohol revenue increased massively during covid, among older folks. Linneals have dropped alcohol intake, in favor of??

Mary Jane. You Neo's want job creation in an Agricultural State? There tis.

 

[BigOrange15]

Alcohol revenue increased massively during covid, among older folks. Linneals have dropped alcohol intake, in favor of??

Mary Jane. You Neo's want job creation in an Agricultural State? There tis.

Zoomers too. Alcohol intake has been trending down in young people since at least 2000.

 

[rikberry31]

would be a huge influx of cash from marijuana

It would be a huge influx of problems, look what happens where they've done it already.

 

[mrMet]

Zoomers too. Alcohol intake has been trending down in young people since at least 2000.

Strongly disagree here

 

[LouderVol]

I actually addressed the property question in the post you quoted. They were not on the property of the person who took the flag

So the consequence of free speech is getting your stuff taken? Interesting punishment.

Did the guy take something that belonged to someone else? Do you think he recognized their act as free speech or does he ascribe a bigger meaning to their item of choice to burn?

Lighting "a bunch of stuff" on fire is not protected anywhere that I'm aware of

it doesn't matter if its his property or not. private property is private property, they were guilty of several crimes being there, and burning the flag as a protest doesn't do anything to change they were trespassing and damaging private property. two points you have yet to address. thats why I brought up the place of employment. someone burns a flag in my office I am going to take it away. fire isn't safe, that fire could easily damage my employers office, and at the very least is a distraction which disrupts someone else's business. a third party doesn't get to show up on someone else's private property and do whatever they want as part of a protest consequence free.

the consequence of burning something on someone else's property and having that to be burned item taken away is a very fitting punishment. their protest rights ended the moment they illegally stepped on the field. one act being protected doesn't mean the rest of their acts were. the criminality of their other acts ends their protest. its why most people make a distinction between a riot and a protest. or with all this on campus anti-Israeli stuff, it was fine when they were protesting the war, but they start chanting death threats and its no longer a protest. same thing here, once they were trespassing and taking action that would have damaged private property their protest is no longer a protest.

I don't think he did. they were clearly going to abandon the flag. they had given up any claim to it once they lit it on fire. you didn't address what you thought their plans were. were they going to take the ashes? It was still going to be their flag. Was the guy who had to clean up the ashes going to be stealing? Because it was still their flag right? you have created a scenario where there is no legal out. the grounds crew, security, whoever had to deal with it was going to be breaking the law in your eyes. which just shows how illogical your argument is.

I was going to burn a bunch of flags, which you said was a right to burn. your refusal to address this just shows the holes in your argument. Its apparently ok if someone burns a flag on someone else's private property, but when it comes to your private property you are mum. How very NIMBY of you. well I guess NIMFY in my scenario.

 

[drvenner]

It would be a huge influx of problems, look what happens where they've done it already.

So maybe we should apply the same restrictions to alcohol?

 

[rikberry31]

So maybe we should apply the same restrictions to alcohol?

I don't think the federal government should be in the business of making weed or alcohol legal or illegal. They are just in it for the money, it changes nothing. I believe that the government saying it legal is a defacto endorsement and makes people believe it is safe. Neither weed or alcohol is safe but the government should not save people from bad decisions.
The problem with weed becoming "legal" ( it already is practically speaking) is that it it is a vehicle for the government to inject itself into regulate it and basically gets into the weed business, it becomes in the government's best interest financially for more to be sold. The become de facto drug dealers.
Then they will enable the people that get in trouble and layout by bailing them out with a check. It ends up costing more overall than the tax money that is taken in. And the way the government works, the "legal" weed will be inferior to what can be bought on the black market so the cartels will still be financed just with a new partner the U.S. government, taking a slice of the pie.
And yes, I do think the government should get out of the alcohol business too.

 

[Devo182]

It would be a huge influx of problems, look what happens where they've done it already.

Can't tell if serious.

Because nobody partakes already(?) and it's better to keep things in black markets, like bootlegging or gang activity(?)

Fallacious to use islands as examples. People flood there for exact reasons. Once legalized everywhere, drug tourism ends on a dime.

If we want to talk causes of societal problems, let's talk alcohol. There's the bulk of your domestic issues. Not people sitting on their couch for too long.

 

[Devo182]

Zoomers too. Alcohol intake has been trending down in young people since at least 2000.

This is true.

Idk about Zoomers, but gen Z and younger millenials for sure. They're looking for less destructive (especially physically, given how SM and image is so big for them) avenues.

Alcohol-free bars are also popping up everywhere...adaptogenic drinks...etc.

 

[Devo182]

Ok, you changed my mind.

Lock it down, make it illegal, incarcerate everyone. That has done really well
in past.

Don't forget line the pockets of the mob, mafioso, gangs, and cartels.

They literally survive through illegal drug sales.

And America...as the biggest consumer of all said substances...brings it all upon ourselves through said laws. It used to be the mob folks were worried about...then street gangs...now the cartels are everywhere.

Straight dumb if we can't learn simple lessons.

 

[rikberry31]

Can't tell if serious.

Because nobody partakes already(?) and it's better to keep things in black markets, like bootlegging or gang activity(?)

Fallacious to use islands as examples. People flood there for exact reasons. Once legalized everywhere, drug tourism ends on a dime.

If we want to talk causes of societal problems, let's talk alcohol. There's the bulk of your domestic issues. Not people sitting on their couch for too long.

My main objection is not whether it is legal, because it already is by societal and cultural norms. My problem is that by the feds "legalizing" it they really are just taking it over, like they have with alcohol. They play the shell game of getting people to debate it on moral grounds while their real intention is to muscle in on the action.

And by "legalizing" they are telling many people that it is harmless which is a lie, neither alcohol or marijuana is safe.
To me it is another underhanded way of the government to get its claws in the people. They will get revenue, politicians will gain votes from both sides, and they will create more dependency on government services which equals power.

 

[rikberry31]

Don't forget line the pockets of the mob, mafioso, gangs, and cartels.

They literally survive through illegal drug sales.

And America...as the biggest consumer of all said substances...brings it all upon ourselves through said laws. It used to be the mob folks were worried about...then street gangs...now the cartels are everywhere.

Straight dumb if we can't learn simple lessons.

The largest crime organization in the world is the U.S. government. They want the power, money, votes that come with taking over the drug trade by "legalizing it." Like everything else the people are best served by local not federal control.
I love my country, I fear my government.

 

[butchna]

So maybe we should apply the same restrictions to alcohol?

Been there, tried and failed that. #Prohibition